Jules César

Julius Caesar is a fragment of Roman history, which saw the rise and fall of titans such as Caesar and Mark Antony. The play is a continuation of a magnitude of events, wars and happenings that have already occurred and have resulted in the might of a man called Julius Caesar. Our knowledge about Caesar's past is faint and can be only updated through Caesar's current state and from the characters surrounding him. We sense mercilessness, pomposity, boastfulness, egoism in him through his statements and those made by others such as Cassius but we cannot deny his intelligence, his astuteness and experience also through the statements made by him, Mark Antony, Brutus. Our sparse knowledge about Caesar and certain contradictory attributes regarding him can only construe that he was human, imperfect not inept. The other characters such as Brutus, Mark Antony, Cassius, and Casca were all humans, struggling to fulfill their personal ambitions in a variegated world. Perhaps that's why Julius Caesar the play has none of the high-mindedness of some other plays, and that also makes the narrative a breezy read unlike Hamlet and The Tempest. I think the better play would be Hamlet, because it more organic and definitive, but the more accessible play would certainly be Julius Caesar. When we look at the current anarchy and revolutions in many countries, we think of Julius Caesar and the concept of use and abuse of power and its consequences.

Julius Caesar's characters are not as complex as those in Hamlet and their motives are not as well defined either. After watching the movie twice, reading the play and watching the film again, over two days, I still could not find clarity in Cassius' agenda. He certainly was incendiary in persuading the Senators to persecute Caesar, and he also paltered with Brutus by turning a blind eye to bribery and possibly having itching palm himself. In a play so short, his ambitions could not be well articulated, and I don't criticize Shakespeare here, since one needs a 1400 page epic like Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace to fully flesh out characters (even then Tolstoy's characters kept evolving with changing times). But we are better told about Brutus, who seems to be too moralistic to adopt practicality that Cassius possessed. When he plunged the dagger into Caesar, his soul was not at rest but rather disquiet at the failure of trust on his part. "Et tu Brute? Then fall Caesar" utters Caesar before succumbing to the stab wounds, and these words do not affect Brutus immediately because the deed is done and he has to face the music, but slowly he realizes that he too face doom in the near future. Mark Antony does not come into prominence till Caesar's death and has a game changing speech that shall put him on the throne and cause the Senators to scurry away. Being one of Caesar's most trusted confidantes, Antony must've certainly inherited some qualities from him, and that may be how he sways an agitated crowd against Brutus by targeting their emotions. The women, namely Calpurnia and Portia, act as possible negators of Caesar's fall, and their main purpose it to bring some tension to the play as they unknowingly try to prevent the chain of events. The soothsayer and Artemidorus are also for the same purpose.

Coming to the movie at last, I commend Joseph L. Mankiewicz for (i) giving much freedom to the actors who were well versed with Shakespeare (ii) leaving out redundant portion such as Antony telling a how he would try to extract revenge on Brutus and (iii) keeping the production minimalistic unlike some gaudy historical works (not of Shakespeare) such as 1963's blinding Cleopatra or 1979's execrable Caligula. Acting-wise, I was never certain about which of the three performances – Brando's, Mason's and Gielgud's – was the best. On my first viewing, I was unimpressed and slightly irritated by Brando, but I realized it took time to get used to sharp tonal quality. Mason was thoroughly consistent in making Brutus a heroic character, and I note here that Brutus' momentary disgust, shock and shame at witnessing Caesar's attack is the only time I felt a chill down my spine looking at the rush of emotions on Mason's face. Gielgud has a mellifluous voice and his enunciation was noteworthy. By the third viewing, Brando grew on me and I began realizing the potential of his performance. He role is risky since the monologue he utters is of prime importance, and I admired the rhetoric that he put in his speech to make the same lines "But Caesar was ambitious. And Brutus is an honorable man" sound assertive, affirmative, dispassionate, questionable, accusatory and then sarcastic each time uttered. Even when he points out the stab wounds casted by the Senators, his tearing voice sounds like tearing of flesh by the stab wounds inflicted. I yet felt he was not the leading man, but a great supporting character. Gielgud now seemed slightly theatrical and mechanical at times yet very competent. Therefore, I thought Mason was the leading man worthy of an Oscar nomination for his touching portrayal of the misfortunate Brutus. Edmond O'Brien was good, and Deborah Kerr did her job, though she could have created more personality to her character- who is supposedly a pale, neglected and distraught wife who constantly endeavors to bear her husband's doubts that he keeps hiding from her. The camp, goof and schlock comes with Louis Calhern and mainly, Greer Garson, who did a magnificent job in Mrs. Miniver but sounds over-the-top and mawkish. Fortunately, she still can't beat Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra who gave an orgasm-like reaction at Caesar's death and had murdered every emotion you could think of. The supporting cast from the beginning to the end was very complimentary for the movie.

All in all, a fine transition of a Shakespearean play to the big screen.

My Rating: 8.3 out of 10

1953's JULIUS CAESAR was a milestone in it's time, and still is, perhaps, the finest American production of a Shakespeare play ever recorded on film. Until Joseph L. Mankiewicz's production, only Laurence Olivier's British versions of HAMLET and HENRY V had truly displayed the power and poetry of the Bard's work. Hollywood seemed content to either truncate it in miscast all-star extravaganzas (A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, and ROMEO AND JULIET) or turn it into a weird kind of carnival sideshow (Orson Welles' MACBETH, performed with incomprehensible Scottish accents). Perhaps American film makers were afraid audiences would be put off by Shakespeare's text, with its archaic words, or felt that a British cast and the confines of a stage were 'required' to do a 'proper' rendition. For whatever reason, the British seemed to have a 'lock' on filmed versions of the Bard.

But Mankiewicz understood that Shakespeare was both universal and timeless, and in his capacity of director and (uncredited) screenwriter, he 'opened up' JULIUS CAESAR, eliminating the 'studio' feel of key scenes, and, with producer John Houseman, gathered together an impressive array of talent, with British actors John Gielgud as Cassius, James Mason as Brutus, Greer Garson as Calpurnia, and Deborah Kerr as Portia, and stage-trained American actors such as Oscar winner Edmond O'Brien in supporting roles.

Where the greatest gamble, and payoff, came was in the casting of Marlon Brando as Marc Antony. While Brando was already being hailed as the finest American actor of his generation, there were critics, prior to the film's release, who called his acceptance of the role an ego trip, and expected him to fall on his face. Were they ever WRONG! Brando gave the role a power, a physicality, and charisma that stunned critics and audiences alike. With a flawless British accent, he easily held his own with the veteran cast, and displayed a magnetism that is still enthralling, over 50 years later. His performance became the keystone of the film's success.

Not that JULIUS CAESAR is without faults; it is, occasionally, stagy and artificial, the pacing is a bit too slow and deliberate at times, and, as the title character, Louis Calhern is woefully miscast (he looks and sounds more like a jaded grandfather than the charismatic despot who both enthralled and frightened the Roman world). Still, the film is so strong and dynamic that subsequent versions (such as Charlton Heston's ambitious 1970 production) pale in comparison.

Hollywood finally got it 'right', and we can be grateful that a truly unforgettable presentation of JULIUS CAESAR is available for us, and future generations, to enjoy!

'Julius Caesar' is not one of Shakespeare's best plays, neither is it one of his worst. The final scene is rarely nailed and the supporting characters are a lot more interesting than the titular character, but much of the characterisation is very well rounded, is intriguing thematically and has some of the bard's most famous speeches and lines. Further interest points in seeing 1953's 'Julius Caesar' was its fine cast, that it was directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and that it was scored by one of the greatest film composers at the time Miklos Rozsa.

Found myself not disappointed in 1953's 'Julius Caesar' at all. It may not be a perfect film, but it is one of the better adaptations of the play out there on its own merits and to me one of the best film adaptations of any Shakespeare play. Which is quite a compliment considering that great Shakespeare film adaptations are many, whether traditional or not. Adaptation-wise, there are changes and things left out but the spirit of the play is here and ambience wise and emotionally it's faithful.

There is so much to love here in 'Julius Caesar'. It is exquisitely photographed, though if it were in colour there would have been an even grander look, never trying to do too much while not being too constricted. The 'Quo Vadis'-like sets are grand and lavish, if the budget really wasn't huge that was not obvious here. Rozsa's score is typically lush and sweeping and has a real majesty about it.

Mankiewicz directs beautifully and it was appreciated that he went for drama rather than spectacle, which to me was the right approach that it would make the text resonate more and it lessened the risk of the characterisation being swamped. The drama has intensity and emotional impact in the play, both of which brought out wonderfully. The text does not sound stilted and is poetic and thoughtful, though like all Shakespeare it is talk heavy as a word of warning. The final scene is a problematic scene to get right, this is one of the better interpretations of it. The action excites and moves.

Almost all of the performances are superb. It was a very bold move casting Marlon Brando as Marc Antony, he sears in the role with a lot of fire and dignity. The famous "friends, romans, countrymen" speech is given one of the best and most nuanced interpretations here on film. James Mason is a similarly powerful Brutus, he brings out the character's conflicted feelings with sensitivity and a noble quality (despite what Brutus does, one cannot hate him). John Gielgud was similarly born for Cassius, the envy boils but is not exaggerated and Gielgud has a clear command over the language. Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr make the most of their small roles.

Only Louis Calhern disappoints as a rather bland Caesar. The pace initially is a little deliberate.

Excepting those quibbles, this is a great film version of 'Julius Caesar'. 9/10

Julius Caesar, the classic story of power corrupting and what happens when it's usurped, is the stuff of a near-masterpiece in 1950's Hollywood. The direction is elegant and timed just right to get the performers on their beats and delivering more and then some. Interesting to see the intensity so LARGE on the fronts of both fronts of British classical-trained theater (John Gielgud, as the most psychologically pathological character, Cassius, fully delivering the goods, plus James Mason being his Mason-iest) and the Method (Brando, seeming like he's always been in these robes - at least this week).

It's Shakesepare on Golden-age Hollywood scale, but it's kept intimate when it counts, and the material is allowed to shine fully. This is the Godfather of political dramas, and so many, many lines have been taken into just everyday grammar; aside from the 'fault is not in our stars' line, listen for others like ' O pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth' or 'it was Greek to me'. And yet it's not simply that these actors get some of the meatiest-dramatic lines ever written, like in the history of all civilizations, but that this is all about what it means to have, take, live with, demolish and get back or keep protected Power, with a capital P.

It's almost unfair to give a proper review to the film after seeing it once, as certain big set pieces - or even a couple of the conversations that Cassius has with Brutus or the other Roman senators plotting the death of their "beloved" Caesar - are quite dense with visual touches and details of performance. When Brando has his major set piece (he's not in as much of the film as you might expect, but his presence is felt more, which seems to be a thing with Brando character), addressing the crowd devastated over the loss of their ruler, it's a pinnacle of acting. He isn't just talking to no one, or to himself. He's making it very personal, all the more sad and that the revenge against the betrayers all the more stronger. How to sway a crowd is the name of the dramatic angle here, and it's the stuff of the best Hollywood dramatic acting, writing and direction (and art direction too, what sets) could offer.

Is it perfect? Maybe not. The final battle is good but almost, to me, a little short, as if Mankiewicz steps up to make an epic conclusion, but decides to side-step it as if he isn't totally trusting in his capabilities (that would come later, one supposes, with Cleopatra as far as BIG epics went). And yet the final moments with Cassius and Brutus are so effective it makes one want to say nevermind. Especially Gielgud impresses here, with a role that requires a lot of forceful talking, bordering on yelling, with declarations and insinuations and other things - as big as his acting is, just as with Brando and Mason to an extent, though he kind of pulls it back when he can (see the tent scene between Brutus and Cassius before battle), there's subtleties there, little moments you can see the actor working through the emotional logic first, the dense Shakespeare poetry second.

As with many Shakesepare movies, it may help being familiar with the play ahead of time to get all of the words and idiosyncracies of the Bard prose. But as far as just the core story goes, it's the stuff of legend. Surely one of those films of the 50's, along with On the Waterfront and Streetcar, where you can run it in an acting school and it might almost be enough to show the movie without any lecture to understand how to command attention from a partner, the audience, the whole world.

I am certainly a fan of the bard's work. Therefor I was pleasantly surprised to see this movie and hear that it was almost the complete original text they used for the dialogue. Without subtitles it was a chore to keep up with, but when you do you are in for a treat.

This classic tale of politics, treachery, love and death was performed to perfection by people such as Marlon Brando (Marc Antony), John Gielgud (Cassius, delivering a powerhouse performance as usual), James Mason (Brutus). I was thrilled by the fact that this movie was produced so lavishly and yet so humble. It never made the mistake, like Cleopatra, to depict the scenes too grand. It all stayed very natural and believable. Of course there must be historical inaccuracies in this story, but was Braveheart so accurate. I think when you start watching a movie written by the Shakespeare you shouldn't expect a documentary on the life of Julius Caesar but a lyrical tale about ancient political Rome.

The photography was great, with its glorious Black and White footage.

Although the text can be offputting for some who are not at the least a bit interested in the language the Bard wrote in.

A must for Shakespeare fans.

8/10